*Membership spots not really limited!

Rain Partier

achilles wrote:How so? It's a totally different situation than what Zimmerman was facing, actual potentially lethal violence being done to him at that time. Self defense laws don't allow you to blast away based on something you think MIGHT happen, unless a reasonable person agrees with you that it is very likely you WILL suffer death or great bodily harm.

The only thing Stand Your Ground laws do is take away the duty to retreat, (which of course didn't apply in Zimmerman's case in any event, since he couldn't retreat). They don't allow you to shoot whoever you feel like shooting. As an examination of the outcomes of those cases I provided an indirect link to a couple of dozen posts ago proves.

habitual wrote:Again, irony = astounding.

Hab

You mean the part where Zimmerman WAS getting attacked?

Look at the next sentence. "unless a reasonable person agrees with you that it is very likely you WILL suffer death or great bodily harm." It doesn't seem crazy to suggest that would have suffered death or great bodily harm had Martin continued.

It's not against the law for Zimmerman to walk on the sidewalk. Nor Martin.It's not against the law for Zimmerman to say something to Martin. Or vice versa.

Neither of these are offenses that you can shoot someone for.

When you return to confront someone, begin bashing their head into the pavement and tell them they're going to die... that's where you lose me.

Rain Partier

achilles wrote:How so? It's a totally different situation than what Zimmerman was facing, actual potentially lethal violence being done to him at that time. Self defense laws don't allow you to blast away based on something you think MIGHT happen, unless a reasonable person agrees with you that it is very likely you WILL suffer death or great bodily harm.

The only thing Stand Your Ground laws do is take away the duty to retreat, (which of course didn't apply in Zimmerman's case in any event, since he couldn't retreat). They don't allow you to shoot whoever you feel like shooting. As an examination of the outcomes of those cases I provided an indirect link to a couple of dozen posts ago proves.

habitual wrote:Again, irony = astounding.

Hab

You mean the part where Zimmerman WAS getting attacked?

Look at the next sentence. "unless a reasonable person agrees with you that it is very likely you WILL suffer death or great bodily harm." It doesn't seem crazy to suggest that would have suffered death or great bodily harm had Martin continued.

It's not against the law for Zimmerman to walk on the sidewalk. Nor Martin.It's not against the law for Zimmerman to say something to Martin. Or vice versa.

Neither of these are offenses that you can shoot someone for.

When you return to confront someone, begin bashing their head into the pavement and tell them they're going to die... that's where you lose me.

Silly French Man

Look at the next sentence. "unless a reasonable person agrees with you that it is very likely you WILL suffer death or great bodily harm." It doesn't seem crazy to suggest that would have suffered death or great bodily harm had Martin continued.

It's not against the law for Zimmerman to walk on the sidewalk. Nor Martin.It's not against the law for Zimmerman to say something to Martin. Or vice versa.

Neither of these are offenses that you can shoot someone for.

When you return to confront someone, begin bashing their head into the pavement and tell them they're going to die... that's where you lose me.

Look at the next sentence. "unless a reasonable person agrees with you that it is very likely you WILL suffer death or great bodily harm." It doesn't seem crazy to suggest that would have suffered death or great bodily harm had Martin continued.

It's not against the law for Zimmerman to walk on the sidewalk. Nor Martin.It's not against the law for Zimmerman to say something to Martin. Or vice versa.

Neither of these are offenses that you can shoot someone for.

When you return to confront someone, begin bashing their head into the pavement and tell them they're going to die... that's where you lose me.

Rain Partier

you guys must be pretty unstable if you think someone being creepy is reasonable cause to use force against them

Zimmerman contacted the cops, Martin chose to assault the Zimmerman. You can tap dance around the issue to make it fit into your racist narrative or your anti-gun narrative all you want but this is getting ridiculous.

Rain Partier

you guys must be pretty unstable if you think someone being creepy is reasonable cause to use force against them

Zimmerman contacted the cops, Martin chose to assault the Zimmerman. You can tap dance around the issue to make it fit into your racist narrative or your anti-gun narrative all you want but this is getting ridiculous.

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Rockman wrote:you guys must be pretty unstable if you think someone being creepy is reasonable cause to use force against them

Zimmerman contacted the cops, Martin chose to assault the Zimmerman. You can tap dance around the issue to make it fit into your racist narrative or your anti-gun narrative all you want but this is getting ridiculous.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's a poorly written law that leaves too much open to interpretation.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that not guilty was the right verdict. I don't know one way or another if Zimmerman was a racist or not. I won't call him that and I think people who defend him by trying to smear a 17-year-old are pathetic. I also think that Zimmerman is a dope caused the death of an innocent kid because of his negligence.

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Rockman wrote:you guys must be pretty unstable if you think someone being creepy is reasonable cause to use force against them

Zimmerman contacted the cops, Martin chose to assault the Zimmerman. You can tap dance around the issue to make it fit into your racist narrative or your anti-gun narrative all you want but this is getting ridiculous.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's a poorly written law that leaves too much open to interpretation.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that not guilty was the right verdict. I don't know one way or another if Zimmerman was a racist or not. I won't call him that and I think people who defend him by trying to smear a 17-year-old are pathetic. I also think that Zimmerman is a dope caused the death of an innocent kid because of his negligence.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that not guilty was the right verdict. I don't know one way or another if Zimmerman was a racist or not. I won't call him that and I think people who defend him by trying to smear a 17-year-old are pathetic. I also think that Zimmerman is a dope caused the death of an innocent kid because of his negligence.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that not guilty was the right verdict. I don't know one way or another if Zimmerman was a racist or not. I won't call him that and I think people who defend him by trying to smear a 17-year-old are pathetic. I also think that Zimmerman is a dope caused the death of an innocent kid because of his negligence.

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Rockman wrote:I just don't see how he caused anything when Martin is the one who assaulted him. Prior to that no crimes were committed (aside from the alleged trespassing)

But we've been over that a thousand times, no need to reiterate everything

I won't argue with you about the wording of the law, I don't live in florida nor do I have any inclinations against modifying the phrasing in a law to make sure it can't be abused.

Its just how it is. To a lot of people, "disrespect" is grounds for physical retaliation. A lot of people think that someone that disrespects someone else should be beat down. I've talked to a few of my black friends about this and they all mostly say the same thing: That GZ started it, so TM had every right to fight him. From there, they just start talking about him being a kid, skittles, and iced tea, so it gets pretty mind numbingly dumb after that, but still.

And the race thing, you have to see it in the bigger picture. This isn't necessarily a race issue because some blatant racism on GZ's part. I don't think anyone thinks that its convenient and cut and dry, but because it fits into the larger narrative of black youths getting killed and no one giving a shit. The black community took to this case not as a specific case, but as an indicator for institutional racism as a whole. I don't see a problem with that.

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Rockman wrote:I just don't see how he caused anything when Martin is the one who assaulted him. Prior to that no crimes were committed (aside from the alleged trespassing)

But we've been over that a thousand times, no need to reiterate everything

I won't argue with you about the wording of the law, I don't live in florida nor do I have any inclinations against modifying the phrasing in a law to make sure it can't be abused.

Its just how it is. To a lot of people, "disrespect" is grounds for physical retaliation. A lot of people think that someone that disrespects someone else should be beat down. I've talked to a few of my black friends about this and they all mostly say the same thing: That GZ started it, so TM had every right to fight him. From there, they just start talking about him being a kid, skittles, and iced tea, so it gets pretty mind numbingly dumb after that, but still.

And the race thing, you have to see it in the bigger picture. This isn't necessarily a race issue because some blatant racism on GZ's part. I don't think anyone thinks that its convenient and cut and dry, but because it fits into the larger narrative of black youths getting killed and no one giving a shit. The black community took to this case not as a specific case, but as an indicator for institutional racism as a whole. I don't see a problem with that.

Not a Kardashian

If this is a problem with institutional racism, maybe Obama and Holder should be looking at why George Zimmerman might have assumed a hoodie-wearing black kid walking around in the rain might have been suspicious to him.

Not a Kardashian

If this is a problem with institutional racism, maybe Obama and Holder should be looking at why George Zimmerman might have assumed a hoodie-wearing black kid walking around in the rain might have been suspicious to him.

OMCTO

Thunderstorm wrote:If this is a problem with institutional racism, maybe Obama and Holder should be looking at why George Zimmerman might have assumed a hoodie-wearing black kid walking around in the rain might have been suspicious to him.

OMCTO

Thunderstorm wrote:If this is a problem with institutional racism, maybe Obama and Holder should be looking at why George Zimmerman might have assumed a hoodie-wearing black kid walking around in the rain might have been suspicious to him.